Taurine deficiency as a driver of aging

I'm really not understanding why this is being called a contradiction. These studies have, in a good scientific fashion, uncovered some amount of evidence. This evidence has to stand up against 25 years of the FDA recognizing sucralose as generally-recognized-as-safe (GRAS), and the decades prior that made it reach that point. That's a tall hurdle!

A contradiction as the term is being used here, to claim my position is invalid, would mean the studies have found some mathematical proof from axioms that sucralose is toxic. If they did, that would certainly be a contradiction! But that's not what happened. They ran some experiments and found their results. That's good science! But that's not the sort of thing that creates a logical contradiction. Their results don't immediately invalidate 25 years of GRAS status and the decades of work and observation that resulted in that status. They say something more like "hey that's interesting, and worth taking a closer look and getting a better understanding".

My statement that seems to cause some bones of contention was "there's absolutely nothing wrong with consuming sucralose". The study might cause some disagreement there, but the FDA agrees with me on this one. That's not a contradiction in my logic, that's a scientific disagreement. People can disagree in science without there being a contradiction in the logic of either side. Logic has some pretty strict mathematical requirements, after all.

edit: Aand, going back to what I originally wrote, this is the exact statement from the other user that I said I was not contradicting with anything I wrote: "There are studies for and against artificial sweeteners. There are studies funded by industry. There is such a thing as corruption in science and corruption in regulatory agencies. The global artificial sweetener market size is $7 Billion."

All of those things are true, and nothing I wrote addresses them at all. From there we seemed to have launched into a debate about studies. Which, that's fine, but that's a totally separate type of disagreement!

> By the way: A 16 oz can of Monster contains 2 grams of taurine.

And at least 50%+ of the "added sugar" recommendation(s) for an entire day (depending on whether you look at FDA, AHA, etc. guidelines).

You make good points, for sure, and I appreciate your comment and insights. But, "sugar" is definitely an issue with a lot of current foods.

Carbohydrates are crucial building blocks, biochemically. However, there are numerous increasingly documented adverse effects stemming from "simple sugars" consumption - both epidemiologically, and mechanistically / molecularly (e.g., "glycation").

That said, I'd absolutely recommend sugar over many other available sweeteners. In fact, there are a whole host of "refined" food "modifiers" increasingly available and used that seem to have often unfortunately deleterious effects. For example, even substances like inulin, sugar alcohols, etc., that can be beneficial (have been determined to contribute to healthfulness) in various foods that have been eaten by humans for centuries if not millennia, often end up either not beneficial or actually harmful as applied in current "modern food chemistry".

This isn't to say that we must go "paleo", nor that there are inherent or unsurpassable problems in formulating and "manufacturing" (always a word I love, when it comes to food ... meh) new food products that are safe and have advantages over many entirely unprocessed foods (hell, cooking IS a form of processing, and it's rather crucial given our physiologies, improving safety and nutrition of many types of foods significantly). But, food processing and manufacturing is a rather lightly regulated industry in some ways, and much of it moves far faster than studies of the implications of all of the new formulations, additives, etc.

Time and again, people and industry have been enamored of some apparent "free lunch" that has bitten us in the ass, so to speak, ultimately.

Octopus and squids works too. Buy boiled and/or pre-sashimi’d, open package, slice as needed and serve with soy sauce.

Somehow I hated them as a child. Maybe it was too much for my body back then.

Or digestive disorders like IBD

Not being snarky - but do you have references for that? Most research I've seen either conflates nicotine and tobacco, or finds 'pure' nicotine (eg NRTs) have close to zero negative side effects.